There we go. >> Okay, if we're all here and all that are expected to be here, let's get this going. This is a special meeting of the burrow council on this 23rd day of December, 2025. Notice of the time and
place of this meeting has been provided to the Ridgewood News, the Bergen Record, the Pasco Press, and Community Life. Um, on December 19th, 2025, a copy was posted on the bulletin board outside of the meeting room and available to any interested parties. Please silence your
cell phone, which I am doing right now because I All right. Wait to be recognized during the public hearing. Public comment, you'll need to state your name and town of residence. Uh, let's all rise for the pledge of allegiance. And I've got my little flag here, so we can do that hopefully. Okay.
I pledge allegiance >> allegiance to the flag. of the United States of America >> and to the republic for it stands nationisible >> with liberty and justice for all.
>> Thank you everybody. Um will the clerk please read the role? >> Council president Oso >> here. >> Council member Kleti >> here. >> Council member Fox is absent. Council member Mazuchang. Council member Rico >> here.
>> Council member Chromi Muk is absent and Mayor Shinfield >> here. Um let's go right into it. Uh let's start with the discussion. Mike, did you want to start it or we going right to Darlene? >> I So if you have any questions to
Darlene, we sent out the agreement and we sent out the reszo. Uh we discussed it with a few council members, but if anyone has any specific questions. Yeah, I I thank um you and Darlene for answering the questions I had. When I
saw the actual agreement, I did have a couple of questions and more or less general if I could be allowed to ask Darlene them if that would be okay. Um is that all right with you, Mr. Mayor? >> Oh, go ahead. That's why we're here. Um
just there's that part and I'm referring to the agreement itself. Uh I guess it would be on page three of the agreement number eight where it says the bureau agrees to the following. Um that part B
that talks about um the burrow agrees to amend the Hillsdale Patterson Street redevelopment plan. Is that applicable to the project that's now nearing completion or is that looking forward looking >> perspective? >> Okay. Um
the section nine that talks about Hillsdale House. Are we obligated to accept any comments that Fairshare Housing gives us uh with respect to uh the spending plan that's referenced
here? It's due by March 15, I believe. Uh the spending plan is actually due by January 6th. We have to adopt it. A draft? Yes. So a draft is due in January. Um the major changes to the
spending plan have to do with the NJAC 599 rules that were just adopted last Monday. And so I will be updating your spending plan to align with those changes. Fair Share did not offer any comments on our draft spending plan that
we submitted to them and so other than some minor changes because of the regulation amendments. Um I would suggest that fair share has already gotten their bite at that apple and there's not really much for them to comment on. >> Okay. But in ter if they were to comment
by the deadline of January 20th, are those just um are those obligatory for us to follow or >> So I think it would depend on what the comment is. Um sometimes fair share can be nitpicky and it's just what they
want, not necessarily uh related to a regulation. At the end of the day, if they send a comment in that we do not agree with that's beyond the statutory framework, ultimately the program will
have to decide um who who is correct or what way that the plan should be written. At the end of the day, our goal is to file a spending plan and if fair share wants to try and stretch the four corners of the law, then that's a fight
we'll fight down the road. But my goal is submit the drafts on time, adopt the documents on time, and if fair share wants to pick a fight with us or any other town, then that will happen after March 15th. >> Okay. All right. I understand. >> But I honestly don't think they're going
to be focused on the spending plans because don't forget, every town's going to be in the same boat between January and March of having to supply um re revised ordinances. Um, and I mean in some towns there will be upwards of
eight new zoning ordinances that are brand new that they've never seen. They're going to be focusing on that because that's where the developer challenges lie. >> Gotcha. Okay. >> Um, so I don't I don't see spending plans being at the top of their to-do list. >> Okay. All right.
>> John, John, can I just piggy back off of that? >> Yeah. Yeah, go ahead. >> I had a question on the same one. And this might be more for Gassali in that the way this is worded, right? it it's funding for any repairs necessary to enable. So, do we have any type of idea the range that that will be in and where
is that taken into consideration from a budget perspective going forward? >> So, we just did an inspection uh to see uh what's needed for their CCO. Uh and then there's a couple things that they have to fix. I'm working with Darlene on the budget, see what what can
be taken out of the trust fund to fund it. But they're looking for major things. I don't think we can fund major things like a boiler uh in the range of $100,000. Uh we're looking to maybe fix uh outlets, you know, wall outlets, fix
some pipings, but nothing that major. >> So, so are we comfortable then with the language that says any repairs necessary? >> So, just to clarify, those are repairs necessary to gain a CCO. It's my understanding that there are no repairs
necessary to issue that CCO. >> That that that is correct. >> Oh, okay. >> But we did offer to see if we can assist in in a way. Uh but it's out of our budget. >> Mike, is this the new inspection we had talked about between the last time we
met with Darlene and now? >> Uh new inspection was there was only one inspection. Okay. Fire official went in and checked it. >> Okay. I have I have another question. It's more of a background question though for
for me and it's about that age restricted cap on uh I guess it's uh seniors. Uh it restricts um units to be capped at 30% of the overall fourth
round uh affordable housing units. I'm the liaison to the seniors. I'm constantly asked, "What are my chances of getting access to fair, you know, to housing in the area, especially in Hillsdale, and I tell them based on my
experiences that, well, you're going to be in the pot with everybody else. You're not favored in any way." Um, but why why do you think that this I I know this is a reflection of what's in the law, so I'm not saying, you know, we
stuck this in there, but why do they discriminate against seniors? To me, in this area of New Jersey, seniors have a crying need, I I guess around the state, to be able to live in affordable
housing. But yet we you know we restricted. Wh why is that? >> So it's my understanding. So initially there was no senior cap. If you rewind to the first round there was no senior cap. So many towns were enterprising and
all of their affordable units were senior. And the legislators realized that if they didn't start putting in minimums and maximums, there was a gigantic loophole and towns would only allow seniors. So, as time as each round
has progressed, you know, you you notice that these rule sets keep getting progressively longer because >> they keep trying to eliminate the loopholes. And now that's why we have a senior cap. And conversely, we also have a family minimum. What I would tell the
seniors is there's nothing that prohibits them from applying to a family quote unquote family development, affordable development. Obviously, the pool of candidates is going to be much larger and so they'll be competing with
many more people as opposed to if it was just a senior project. But I would still encourage them because most towns do have a regional preference. So that means, you know, in Bergen County, they'd have be part of that regional preference along with the other counties
in your region. So I wouldn't um let them be completely discouraged by the fact of the limited number of senior only options. >> Okay. Okay. Um two other questions and then I'll I'll
stop. This is um because I got a lot but I the on page I guess it's nine of the agreement it says >> the marketing the the affirmative marketing plan >> shall include the following community
and regional organizations and it goes on to name one to about seven of them. Um, and and I'm not so sure what does it mean to allow an organization to be included in the marketing plan? I mean, obviously these groups named here, the
Latino Action Network, the NAACP, the Urban League, uh, you know, they have an interest in seeing to their constituencies that affordable housing is administered fairly. Uh but what about there's a whole range of other
groups that aren't represented. Um and I look at the first part of that section where it talks about the marketing uh shall include we say posting of all the affordable units on the New Jersey Housing Resource Center website.
I might have just stopped at that point and let it be. but they've decided to give maybe a favorable treatment to these other groups um in so far as they're being allowed to be included in the affirmative marketing plan. And
that's what I'm asking. What does that mean? Well, >> it's a good question. So, for example, Claremont is under construction. When they start their affirmative marketing, which their administrative agent is required to do 120 days before the
affordable units are coed, they have to send it to our current affirmative marketing plan list, which we did all the way back in 2018 as part of the third round plan. That includes notices to certain newspapers, in some instances, either TV or radio outlets,
um, every county um, administration building in your region one, as well as various, um, religious and nonprofit organizations and employers. Some of these entities at the end of paragraph E were in our third round settlement. I
can tell you in every settlement agreement I've reviewed so far from fair share, these same entities are in here, except if I'm in Hudson County, it's the Hudson Urban League as opposed to the Bergen County. >> Right. Right. >> This is just their group of special
interest groups that would receive notice that affordable units are becoming available. So, they just received notice just like the employment centers on our affirmative marketing list would receive a flyer saying that Claremont, you know, there's going to be
x number of units. They're coming online about this date and here is the website to file an application. >> So, it's essentially just receiving notice that there are units becoming available. >> Yeah. Yeah. To me, it just strikes me as a little bit discriminatory against
those who are not listed. >> Yeah. I I >> It's like a favoritism. >> It is. And in fact, I had mentioned in one of my other towns that instead the Bergen County Housing Authority should be included on this list
>> because that makes a lot of sense that that's what they do, right? >> And I was told you can add them to this list, but it would not remove any of the existing named parties. >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. All right. And I guess the last question I had is
on page 10 it talks about the Bank America site. Uh we went from density from 20 to 25. I had raised that on earlier a few days ago. You I think you answered but I wasn't quite sure that I understood the answer. Could you go
through why we had to in the mediation process increase the density because that BFA was in our original or that property was in our our >> round three >> affordable housing plan you know nine 10 years ago. So
>> yes. So if you rewind the clock the amended fair housing act made a strategic change to the requirements for towns seeking a vacant land adjustment. It says that you have to put in place um zoning for sites that are likely to
redevelop in the amount of 25% times your adjusted obligation. And of the municipal the majority of municipalities took the position that 25% of adjusted obligation is 25% times RDP. Fair share housing center of course took the
position oh no no no >> 25% of unmet need. And in the case of the Hillsdale, that is dramatically different because we have an RDP of four and an unmet need, >> right? >> 186
>> completely different results. So, as part of the mediation process, we agreed that we would try to get close to their 25%*
186 because they would leave our RDP alone. Their original challenge was attempting to undermine and undercut our vacant land adjustment and our RDP of four. they were saying that it needed to be much much higher because we missed
all this flooded vacant land. Um and so we towns essentially have a couple of options during this mediation process to get to the 25% of unmet need. You can zone
additional sites which we did not want to do. uh or you could increase the density or the set aides on existing third round sites and ultimately fair housing center zeroed in
on the bank property because it is one of our third round sites addressing third round RDP. um they're upset that it hasn't come to fruition yet, but um I reminded them that just because a a property owner didn't, you know, change
hands or or leave town, >> it doesn't make the zoning um it doesn't render the zoning >> um invalid or >> Yeah. >> mood. It's that the the tenant or the property owner just hasn't left. So, good for them that they're they're still
up and running. Yeah, >> but uh a way to essentially resolving this litigation was to just marginally increase that density from 20 to 25 units which is only an increase of seven units across the entire site. It does
not modify any of the other bulk standards. So yards, setbacks, height, parking, all of those numbers remain the same. It was just a a way that we were able to reach a settlement with them. Yeah, I just got
concerned that like you see Emerson uh and they're building a large you you know large uh project there um >> building they were they were they were building Yeah, they were >> they they were I passed by yesterday they had
>> scaffolding and everything you know covering it but it's something's going there. They're not going to tear it down. Um, and I just got a little concerned that well to to make that that site a higher density in our downtown area didn't seem to be the right thing.
But I now I understand why we as a burrow in the mediation did that. It's >> I would tell you this settlement in in comparing it to many of my other towns is a tremendously
uh good settlement when you're dealing with fair share housing center. Um there are other towns that I'm working with that are being forced to look at densities 35 to 60 units an acre and so the fact that they actually only pushed us to increase to 25 units to the acre
on this site is quite frankly shocking. um because they could have and they are in other towns asking for much greater denser densities and higher um a higher number of stories. And I don't disagree with you. We certainly did not want to
undermine the character and the scale of the downtown. And so when they said to 25, I'm like this can work >> and fit within the character. >> Yeah. I'd like to think that they actually gave us some uh implicit recognition for the years of of uh
overlay zoning that we did when other burrows weren't. Um and you know, we've been as a town, we've been adhering through our planning board process to a 15% uh I think the overlay is any new development over four units gets 15 15%
a certain percentage has to be affordable. And you know, we've we've done that for a long time, even before I think we were required to do that. So hopefully that factored into their willingness to leave us alone in this in this
particular area. Okay. I'm sorry. I >> We can be hopeful for that. Yeah. >> Will will the clerk please recognize also that uh Councilwoman Mazuchong has joined us on the uh uh on the on the call. >> Wonderful.
>> Okay. Uh are there any other questions? Just just to avoid doubt, the only two density changes are relating to the redevelopment, what's left of the redevelopment area and the Bank of America site, and that is it. >> Yep. >> Correct. >> Yeah.
>> Correct. Then and Yes. >> Correct. >> And and Darlene, what what date does this plan actually get us to? >> This plan runs through 2035. It's a 10-year period, but be reminded that there is a midpoint review just like
there was in the last round. So, in 2030, anyone can file uh paperwork um questioning the status of any of our sites that are in the plan.
>> Okay. >> So, yeah. Is there um any other question before I turn it over to the public? Seeing none. Is there anybody that would like to be recognized from the public to uh comment or question?
Okay. I don't see any. Mike, do you do you see any hands up? >> I do not. >> Okay. Great. Um then let's I'd like to um move forward on resolution 25304, resolution authorizing the execution of
a mediation agreement for the affordable housing dispute resolution program. Can I get a motion? >> Motion. >> Can I get a second? >> Second. >> I'll second it. >> Okay. Will the clerk please read the role? >> Council member Kleti.
>> Yes. >> Council member Fox. Council member Mazuchang. >> Yes. >> Council President Oso. >> Yes. >> Council member Rico. >> Let me hold my nose and vote. Yes. >> Was that with an S E or an N O?
>> Yes. >> Okay. and council member Trohim is absent. So, >> okay. So, it passes unanimously. Wonderful. Uh before we go to a motion to adjourn, I can again say happy holidays to everybody for this for for now. I I guess tomorrow we begin this.
Um so, happy holidays to all. Can I get a motion to adjourn? >> And Darlene, thank you for all your efforts. >> Indeed. >> Yes. Yeah. Yeah. >> Question. and Mark, they both >> I I hope you all know that none of this
happens without Darlene's expertise. And uh I know our core group of myself, the mayor, and Mike are well aware of that and Darlene is probably too modest to admit it, but once again, round three
and round four, I think we've done very well. It's an excellent excellent settlement >> and uh >> should be very very proud to have Darlene working for them. >> I feel like I get an advanced education
course every time we have one of our sessions or we go into uh meeting with um the adjudicator etc. It's all it's it's wonderful and yes >> yeah I mean Darlene has done a marvelous
job. I echo that. But every time though we have to vote on something with affordable housing though sometimes I feel that there's a gun being held to my head by by fair share housing and uh you know they designed this system of need
and affordable housing units how many are required. uh had the opportunity over this last year and a half as part of the League of Municipalities to understand and to to object on a through them to how the whole process was was
done. Um but inevitably the legislature stands behind fair share housing. It's empowered them in a remarkable way and um they hold a gun to our heads and we have to do the best we can uh for our residents to maneuver through it. And
Darlene, thanks to you, I we we've done that. >> And John, it seems like a lot of towns out there are going to have a lot of IUS for the next couple of decades to come, right? >> Yeah. Yeah, I know. I just look forward like to the day that I'm, like you said,
10 years down the road, I'll be like 84, then I might need affordable housing, you know? >> Yeah. >> But it won't be in Hillsdale, unfortunately, because I can't get on. >> Okay. Well, can I get a motion to adjurnn?
>> Motion. >> Second, >> those in favor? >> I >> I >> We are adjourned. Um >> and I guess we'll see you all January 6th um for the reorganization meeting.
>> Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. >> Everybody, thank you everybody. >> Thank you. >> Have a merry Christmas. Byebye. Be safe.